Interesting questions on Joe Stack

[Ghent12]

That's the key mistake in your analysis.

A small percentage (perhaps 2 or 4 percent) of the world's people are sociopaths (aka psychopaths.) They are more likely than the rest of us to seek positions of power and they tend to promote their kind. The end result is that large organizations, especially those with substantial power, have a strong tendency to become deeply corrupt. The rest of us naive patsies can usually be coerced, cajoled, conned or confused into going along. Stubborn patsies are sealed off from any essential knowledge, or they are discredited, imprisoned, destroyed, silenced or killed.

I'm sorry Ghent12, but your assumption is wrong; very, very wrong.

The point being, who exactly are you talking about? The President? Local sheriffs? Nerds turned billionaires? Your post is an amalgamation of random, unlinked psychological traits meant to paint a picture of the world that includes everyone. You have simultaneously accused sociopaths/psychopaths, the ambitious, the selfish, and the protectionists--all of which are separate mental dispositions--of some ill-defined "badness" quality. Not only that, but you have accused "the rest" of being naive and stupid or stubborn but held down by the man.

All of this stems from your world view; none from evidence. Tell me, are you among the stubborn patsies that have been sealed off, imprisoned, silenced, or killed? Or are you among the naive patsies that has been coerced, cajoled, etc.? Since you are seemingly neither, how can you even possess a world view that does not include yourself?

Any critical examination would outright reject your view as collectivist nonsense. It's merely an overly-broad blanket that doesn't bother to examine the details; and should questions come about the details, you need only look to the broad blanket--"they" are out to destroy you so obviously all of "them" are evil because they're the ones that sought power to be their sociopathic selves. Is your local sheriff out to get you? Is your local mayor? The governor? Your district's FBI? Which corporations or parts of your government are truly silencing you, imprisoning you for not being cajoled, and killing you?

In real life, details matter. It's fun to say things like, "throw all the bums out," in reference to Congress; yet in reality most people could find more than one person to keep if they went into details on who to fire and who to retain if they had such a power. Just because corruption is systematic, that doesn't mean it extends pervasively everywhere.

[iyamwutiam]

Interesting questions on Joe Stack

I stumbled across this article and until I got half way through it -though sheesh another conspiracy theory. However -there is one valid point -how out of the blue with in 5 minutes of the crash could they POSSIBLY know it was Joe Stack?! Especially given the huge amount of damage and the plane being burnt to a crisp.

Sort of reminded me of the miracle of the intact Saudi passports found on the street next to the WTC - a disaster that destroyed 3 building and all of its contents -but apparently -these passports were not. Surely makes me believe in God. It as 'HE" through his miracle that pointed America the right way to our true enemies :rolleyes:.

Whoops forgot the Link

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...ck_030410.html

[c1ue]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

All small planes (actually, all planes) have an identifier and are tracked as long as they are within radar range of an airport - which Joe Stack definitely was.

Even if the plane was a flying club time share, there are internet accessible records on who's using a given aircraft ID at any given time.

[D-Mack]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

As Mr X aka Fletcher Prouty has said "the cover up is the key".

You need a cover story especially in events where it cannot be done by the patsy.

I don't know enough about him and this incident to decide if he did it alone or was patsy.


But I remember I listened to report about the news confernce, were the reporters where surprised how quickly they got the information.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

By coincidence, Travis County Hazardous Materials Team - an inter-agency group of firefighters from outside the City of Austin - had just assembled for training across the freeway from the targeted building, observed the low and fast flight of Stack's plane, and heard the blast impact.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...042.html?imw=Y

In addition -the fuel capacity of the Piper is only 72 gallons
I am NO engineer but I think its hardly enough to cause the kind of damage we see if we are to believe the other picture showing a Piper crashing into the building.

Especially considering this
http://history1900s.about.com/od/194...mpirecrash.htm

I am not saying any of what that conspiracy guy said is true -
The empire crash is interesting in the sense that an entire B-52 bomber loaded with bombs flew directly into the Empire State Building with little damage -while a commercial plane/s knocked out 3 buildings with in what an hour?

[Ghent12]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

By coincidence, Travis County Hazardous Materials Team - an inter-agency group of firefighters from outside the City of Austin - had just assembled for training across the freeway from the targeted building, observed the low and fast flight of Stack's plane, and heard the blast impact.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...042.html?imw=Y

In addition -the fuel capacity of the Piper is only 72 gallons
I am NO engineer but I think its hardly enough to cause the kind of damage we see if we are to believe the other picture showing a Piper crashing into the building.

Especially considering this
http://history1900s.about.com/od/194...mpirecrash.htm

I am not saying any of what that conspiracy guy said is true -
The empire crash is interesting in the sense that an entire B-52 bomber loaded with bombs flew directly into the Empire State Building with little damage -while a commercial plane/s knocked out 3 buildings with in what an hour?

Do you intentionally mislead (lie) or are you incapable of remembering basic details? Repeat after me:
B-25, no bomb load.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

nothing intentional -B-52/B-25 mistake. They were bombers -so its not a huge mistake to assume they had bombs.

[Ghent12]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

nothing intentional -B-52/B-25 mistake. They were bombers -so its not a huge mistake to assume they had bombs.

I'll buy the first part, but the second part is the heart of your post and the logic behind it. Assumptions assumptions assumptions... I assume you catch my meaning.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

Absolutely I think you made a very good point. I checked the relative sizes and fuel tanks between the B-25 and 747 -huge differences -in size but most particularly fuel tank sizes.

Its just difficult to believe the government version of anything anymore. Perhaps thats why so many people are willing to put more 'faith' into alternative stories. The credibility of government given the many examples of duplicity has me for one to be extremely sceptical.

I do apologize -it was not an intentional attempt to mislead -but it is getting extremely difficult to believe the textbooks -American History for one.

[Ghent12]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

It's definitely difficult to believe "them" after things such as magically-vanishing WMD's and so forth, but critical scrutiny should not be relegated for use against only "them" either. Raising questions is great and all, but fundamentally if you want to latch onto something you need more answers than open questions. Just asking more and more questions is akin to a 12-year-old asking "why?" after everything you say.

Here's an assumption I'm comfortable with: more often than not, "they" are human and are interested in the same things we all are.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

It's definitely difficult to believe "them" after things such as magically-vanishing WMD's and so forth, but critical scrutiny should not be relegated for use against only "them" either. Raising questions is great and all, but fundamentally if you want to latch onto something you need more answers than open questions. Just asking more and more questions is akin to a 12-year-old asking "why?" after everything you say.

Here's an assumption I'm comfortable with: more often than not, "they" are human and are interested in the same things we all are.

Well mysterious suicides like Gary Web, Bruce Ivens, David Kelly and the movie that Albatross posted in another thread would pre-dispose one to question the veracity, intent and moral fiber of these dispersers of 'truth'. As for the assumption/premise that 'they' are like us - can after so many atrocities perpetrated against innocents -be seriously questioned.

There will be an wellspring of anger and broad rejection of premises when one is entrapped in the quicksand of institutional propaganda.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

Here's an assumption I'm comfortable with: more often than not, "they" are human and are interested in the same things we all are.

That's the key mistake in your analysis.

A small percentage (perhaps 2 or 4 percent) of the world's people are sociopaths (aka psychopaths.) They are more likely than the rest of us to seek positions of power and they tend to promote their kind. The end result is that large organizations, especially those with substantial power, have a strong tendency to become deeply corrupt. The rest of us naive patsies can usually be coerced, cajoled, conned or confused into going along. Stubborn patsies are sealed off from any essential knowledge, or they are discredited, imprisoned, destroyed, silenced or killed.

I'm sorry Ghent12, but your assumption is wrong; very, very wrong.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

The point being, who exactly are you talking about? The President? Local sheriffs? Nerds turned billionaires? Your post is an amalgamation of random, unlinked psychological traits meant to paint a picture of the world that includes everyone. You have simultaneously accused sociopaths/psychopaths, the ambitious, the selfish, and the protectionists--all of which are separate mental dispositions--of some ill-defined "badness" quality. Not only that, but you have accused "the rest" of being naive and stupid or stubborn but held down by the man.

All of this stems from your world view; none from evidence. Tell me, are you among the stubborn patsies that have been sealed off, imprisoned, silenced, or killed? Or are you among the naive patsies that has been coerced, cajoled, etc.? Since you are seemingly neither, how can you even possess a world view that does not include yourself?

Any critical examination would outright reject your view as collectivist nonsense. It's merely an overly-broad blanket that doesn't bother to examine the details; and should questions come about the details, you need only look to the broad blanket--"they" are out to destroy you so obviously all of "them" are evil because they're the ones that sought power to be their sociopathic selves. Is your local sheriff out to get you? Is your local mayor? The governor? Your district's FBI? Which corporations or parts of your government are truly silencing you, imprisoning you for not being cajoled, and killing you?

In real life, details matter. It's fun to say things like, "throw all the bums out," in reference to Congress; yet in reality most people could find more than one person to keep if they went into details on who to fire and who to retain if they had such a power. Just because corruption is systematic, that doesn't mean it extends pervasively everywhere.

Have you seen the documentary 'The Corporation'? Also deconstruction is not in and of itself the criterion for knowledge. If corruption is systemic ' but it is not extensively pervasive -what is your point ? A system is generally a cohort of parts that work together to produce an output- if one says and acknowledges it is systematic - then it obviously go through its separate parts and is in the output. The minute distinction entitles one to to an angry retort about how the other person is generalizing?

As for being 'held' down by the man -do you dispute the fact that most of the jails are filled with non-violent offenders- a readily confirm-able fact. How much evidence would you need -a preponderance appears to be grossly insufficient. Why is that- does this reflect disquietude which is transformed into a rigid and strident demand for 'absolute' proof. How many historically documented events would suffice (many of them only confirmed decades or centuries after the acts) ?

Have you heard of Edward Bernays, or the acknowledged CIA experiments project MKUltra, Operation Northwoods, Iran/Contra, the Maine, the Tonkin incident?

This call for seeing good in most men -really did the American Indians a lot of good -remember Thanksgiving? Surely -your not suggesting we throw out skepticism and caution, past history and even plain deduction out the window because it doesn't conform to an all or none principle of truth or some exactingly rigid standard evidential proof. You must be aware that when people engage in illegitimate, unethical and illegal acts they go OUT of their way to ensure such a standard can never be produced? I am sorry -but on this I can not agree.

[c1ue]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

If one is flying VFR in uncontrolled airspace there isn't an obligation to file a flight plan...although it's a good idea to do so [in detail] even if it's not mandatory. The time it took to find Steve Fossett's airplane is a good example of what happens when nobody knows exactly where a VFR pilot plans to route.

Fair 'nuff.

Either way, no tin foil hat reason why Joe Stack being in the airplane was known very quickly.

I would note, however, for those who are inclined that way: pretty much all airplanes have GPS based navigation systems - at least those not 'mint' warbirds and what not.

This is (to my admittedly no research) understanding the original market for Garmin - that and oceanic navigation.

But there really is no reason why a received GPS signal cannot be in turn reciprocate with a calculated GPS position. A simple Morse code for example could transmit this.

So those with cell phones, GPS systems, or pretty much anything with a radio:

Aluminum foil (and tin foil!) seems to be the material of choice, but the best material is something with an electric charge running through it (Faraday cage) followed by something ferromagnetic (i.e. iron). Just lining your hat doesn't work - most radio signals can get around that easily. You need full body enclosure.

:eek:

[GRG55]

Re: Interesting questions on Joe Stack

I stumbled across this article and until I got half way through it -though sheesh another conspiracy theory. However -there is one valid point -how out of the blue with in 5 minutes of the crash could they POSSIBLY know it was Joe Stack?! Especially given the huge amount of damage and the plane being burnt to a crisp.

Sort of reminded me of the miracle of the intact Saudi passports found on the street next to the WTC - a disaster that destroyed 3 building and all of its contents -but apparently -these passports were not. Surely makes me believe in God. It as 'HE" through his miracle that pointed America the right way to our true enemies :rolleyes:.

Whoops forgot the Link

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...ck_030410.html

The reports were that Joe Stack was the owner of the airplane and co-owned a hangar. FAA ownership records are searchable on the internet by aircraft registration. I saw some reports that the hangar co-owner is a Homeland Security employee, but don't know if that is fact or another fabrication of the conspiracy buffs.

All small planes (actually, all planes) have an identifier and are tracked as long as they are within radar range of an airport - which Joe Stack definitely was...

This is not completely correct. Large parts of the US airspace system are "controlled airspace", and a transponder [which sends a unique identifier to the air traffic control system] is mandatory on aircraft in that space. I haven't checked the sectional for the crash location, but suspect that it likely was controlled airspace being in an urban area...so you are correct that the air traffic controllers would know immediately which aircraft was involved, and it wouldn't take very long to figure out who was the pilot in command.

Even if the plane was a flying club time share, there are internet accessible records on who's using a given aircraft ID at any given time.

Outside of controlled airspace there's no obligation for aircraft operating under Visual Flight Rules to maintain any regular contact with air traffic controllers, even if it is still within radar coverage. For VFR traffic the controllers will sometimes perform, on request, "flight following" notifications for VFR pilots, but they are under no obligation to do so and will only agree if Instrument Flight Rules traffic workload allow them to.

If one is flying VFR in uncontrolled airspace there isn't an obligation to file a flight plan...although it's a good idea to do so [in detail] even if it's not mandatory. The time it took to find Steve Fossett's airplane is a good example of what happens when nobody knows exactly where a VFR pilot plans to route.